If you’re wondering how desperate alarmists have become in the debate against the skeptics, look no further than Prof. Naomi Oreskes at the 1:12:40 mark of the following video, where she brings up possible “RICO-style prosecution” to go after skeptics. Hey, if you can’t win the scientific debate, then just have the US federal government declare it over and to go after anyone who doesn’t agree.

Obviously the alarmists are tired of losing and seeing support slip away. They just want to be declared the winner, and anyone who can’t accept that should learn to do so using the threat of RICO-style prosecution.

Much of the panel discussion has the participants trying to re-convince themselves there is a scientific consensus and that anyone who disagrees is just stupid anyway. They also talk about what the media can do to control the message, and they praise the LA Times for censoring skeptic views.

After watching parts of the above discussion, you’ll agree that the best thing to do is to just keep on doing what they hate the most: Focus on the data and the charts, and getting people to look out the window (that is if it isn’t buried in snow).

Despite an enormous amount of evidence showing the earth has not only failed to warm in the last 17 years but has in fact started a cooling cycle, these alarmist dummies continue to try to sell their utter nonsense. Fortunately they are not skilled enough salesmen to convince people out of reality. SUpport for this giant non-issue of warming will continue to wain. As the natural warming and cooling cycle continues on the cool side over the next decade they will be forced to flip their mantra to “gobal cooling!!! Oh no!!! We need more tax dollars to build giant heaters to warm the planet!!!”.

“After watching parts of the above discussion, you’ll agree that the best thing to do is to just keep on doing what they hate the most: Focus on the data and the charts, and getting people to look out the window (that is if it isn’t buried in snow)”

Should one not better demand Oreske’s be fired immediately from whatever tax-payer funded position she has, for trying to destroy scientific debate and introduce censorship? She can demand that from a street corner.

Not that I’m optimistic; as Obama constantly perpetrates extrajudicial killings, censorship is too small a violation of the constitution to even register these days.

The science may have left them in the dust but IMHO these folks are criminally insane! They are deadly serious about prosecuting and imprisoning anyone who disagrees with them on any thing. They would have no qualms about killing millions to shut us up and keep their crazy ass’s in power!

An important case against Green law-fare has been ignored by climate skeptics: Chevron vs Donziger.

Activist lawyer Donziger won a $18 billion judgement in Ecuador against Chevron. There was obvious fraud, so Chevron filed a civil RICO suit against Donziger in US court. Trial closed in Dec, awaiting judgement. Donziger may be disbarred over this.

Naomi Oreskes, the Guardian, and the UCS – it would have been tough for the organizers to get people more firmly attached to their side of the divide. The RICO stuff is just silly – there’s a money component in that which they’ll never believe just isn’t there. When the house of cards finally finishes collapsing it will be interesting as people figure out just how much has been accomplished by the skeptic side with so little financial support.

For RICO to work it has to show collusion as an ‘enterprise’ to enrich those in collusion. It would appear that like all ‘projection’ from the gullible warmists, this is what the warmists are guilty of. The most well known of the skeptics are unfunded and not making money whereas every well known name in the warmist camp has made money hand over fist from the cause and even academics on the warmist side are being enriched, they even call it ‘the Team’ (see climategate emails). As such a RICO prosecution against the warmists would almost certainly succeed.

Naomi, bless her little heart, is just a professor. She is allowed to say whatever she wants to.
DirkH says “She can demand that from a street corner.”
Isn’t that what she is doing? Street corners are no longer of much use to folks that want to reach an audience. TV, tweets, Face Book, and blogs are the modern “street corners.”
The US Constitution allows what she is doing. The constitution protects people from the federal government (Congress) and by virtue of the 14th Amendment, state legislatures. A blog host or a TV network, however, need not give anyone the freedom to “express” – private censorship is permitted.
As an historian she knows this. She is using the medium (remember McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” ?) to enhance her own image so she can sell more books, win awards, and so on. She may be hoping to be noticed by the Heinz Award committee as were the Ehrilchs, receiving $250,000.

I have never read something by Oreskes but considered her a third-rank historian or philosopher. This is perhaps the first time a historian tries to impose her ideas by criminal prosecution of her opponents. We live in interesting times.

Did anyone ever watch the movie “MUSIC MAN”? These are nothing but traveling(running) RAIN MAKERS.
It gets dry, they claim THEY will make it rain.
It gets wet, they claim THEY can make it dry.
It gets warm, they claim THEY will cool it down.
It get cold, they claim THEY will make it warm.
BUT it ALWAYS involves YOUR money going into THEIR POCKETS.
FLIMFLAM CON ARTISTS.

Actually, Al “Occidental Petroleum” Gore, and his accomplices, should be arrested for CHILD ABUSE. They are running around this Nation TERRIFYING Children with horror stories about how the kids are being killed by their EVIL, UNCARING Parents. Gore also “ALIENATES AFFECTION” between Parents/Children by sowing seeds of unsubstantiated mistust. That Fat Son of an Unmarried Mother should pay for therapy for all the Children Traumatized by his LIES.

More proof that CAGW believers are silly. The last thing climate change needs is a court case where the goal is to prove the skeptics wrong. But by all means, put prosecution in place for skeptics. Can’t wait. Another Scopes Trial.

To win the judge would need to find that the truth is not relevant to the case. That be hard for a jury to swallow.

Yes, the real debate is about climate sensitivity. None of the tests that use real data indicate it is over 1 degree C. Many indicate it is about 0.6 degrees or less, but I will go with one degree. Is that dangerous?

Archives

The Neglected Sun

Red Hot Lies

Meta

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy